Gilwell_1919

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, and I do hate to repeat myself, but I will.

The role and function of an attorney is to maximize the amount/value their client receives as compensation.

It is NOT the role and function of Kosnoff, or Stang, or ANY attorney for ANYONE other than BSA to care one whit about BSA and the "current scouts".

I'll tell you what an attorney acting ethically would feel: "I feel bad for Johnny. I feel worse for my client who was [insert listing of sexual assault that took place] as part of a BSA program where the BSA, COs, and LCs were negligent. Maybe Johnny should ask BSA leadership why it failed both Johnny AND my client."

You do what we told my troop's Star and Life Scouts last spring: Get your Eagles quick and do NOT assume BSA survives past July.

But again, while you are talking to that 15-year old, why not have a conversation with the 51-year-old who, when he was 15, was sexually abused and had it swept under the rug by his local council? Why is he not worthy of your sympathy and concern?

Again, there are two sets of victims here: the sexually abused scouts of days gone by and the current scouts who will miss out on opportunities today. BOTH can blame BSA for operating in a manner that led to this point.

You know who is NOT to blame? The lawyers for the victims of child rape who are meeting their ethical duties to obtain the best possible settlement for their client(s).

You keep wanting to blame everyone BUT BSA.

The same applies to me. My role, as a leader, is to protect my scouts... be it from physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse... my number one priority is, as will always be, the youth under my care. If that means I have to question the motives of a rapacious lawyer or call out his behavior, which has real implications for my scouts, I will continue to do so. I accept his agenda is to represent his clients, whether that it is from financial motivation or because it's the right thing to do is moot... and my agenda is to protect my scouts; however, as a southern-reared gentleman, I believe in honor and that it matters how a person wins. My point is, a person can win without salting the earth.

I read, verbatim, Tim K.'s social media posts that have been entered into various motions, especial the motion from the insurers that asked the judge for disclosure of the AIS structure. IMHO, I did not think a lot of his public comments were appropriate or needed. Again, how a person wins... matters. I am glad this group of lawyers banded together and are holding BSA to account for the past... I say bravo. But the manner in which Tim K. is conducting himself... seems akin to kicking a person in the face once they are already on the ground - and then reaching into the person's pocket to take a year's worth of lunch money. They've already won... do they have to completely destroy an institution that so many kids still enjoy? Most of us have said repeatedly, BSA is not scouting. But, the point I am trying to make... is that there are still a lot of kids that want to be in "BSA's scouting program". I don't think "hurry up and make Eagle Scout" is the best answer. Granted, I am pushing scouts along the program a little faster these days... and, as an Eagle Scout myself, I will adapt and overcome whatever aftermath we have to confront once the dust settles... but... I will stand by the 12 principles in the scout law, which don't include a "ground-and-pound" continuation after a person (BSA) is already unconscious. 

Let me be clear, what BSA did for 100-years, is unfathomable and beyond the words in any language. I am empathetic towards the victims that had their innocence stolen and their lives ruined. I am not, and would never try to minimize how they feel or diminish their pursuit for justice. But, to not give a modicum of consideration to how this is affecting the current youth... seems a bit hypocritical from my perspective. I have never given much consideration towards BSA national... because they never gave much consideration for me or my scouts... it was always about the almighty dollar. So, my scouting... while it follows BSA's rules, policies, and guidance... is closely aligned with Baden Powell's vision of scouting. The only reason I am cleaving to BSA's version is because my scouts still feel pride from attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. Over the last few months I have had very real conversations with some of my older scouts because they are more than capable of reading the news and other posts on the internet. Some are beside themselves that they may no be able to make Eagle Scout before it is too late, others feel as if their accomplishment of making Eagle Scout has been severely diminished in the "court of public opinion".

We can certainly discuss the same points... over and over... but outside of divine intervention... nothing will sway me from protecting my scouts. Perhaps my anger and frustration should be directed solely at BSA, and it was at first, but when I read repugnant comments from Tim K.... it makes my blood boil. Why? Because, like it or not, our scouts still wear uniforms that say "BSA" on them. So calling BSA evil, pedophiles, and other choice words... affects my scouts that still wear the Boy Scouts of America uniform. If BSA doesn't make it out of this, you can believe I will start my own youth scouting program or support another program like Trail Life. But for now, I still have BSA Scouts under my care... and that means something to me. 

Hopefully that all makes sense to you.  

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Then re-read what he said or re-listen to what he said. He's been remarkably clear about this. He is NOT looking to kill SCOUTING. He's looking to kill BSA.

 

But... what about the current scouts in BSA? What's going to happen to the ones that love it because of local leadership and the friends in their units (and other units in their areas)? If you kill BSA, most of these innocent kids that love the program become collateral damage. I'd rather Tim K. and the others take their pound of flesh... and then let BSA reinvent itself. (crossing finger that they would have the inclination after losing their tails). 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

There is no "AIS Coalition".

There is AIS, a grouping of 3 particular lawfirms representing approximately 15,000 claimants OF WHICH some of those 15,000 are members of the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf

There is the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice which represents around 60,000-65,000 claimants INCLUDING SOME that are members of AIS.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf

There was a falling out and two of the three AIS firms LEFT the Coalition; the third (Eisenberg) remains.

If you read what Kosnoff has written, both in his filings with the court and on Twitter, the abbreviated version is he feels a) the Coalition is in it for profit and Wall Street backed loans (?) and b) that the Coalition is ready to sell out any and all claimants to get a) accomplished where as he (alone) is the sole voice speaking honestly for victims. Everyone else are sellouts.

Ok... I see. I'll eat the humble pie publicly. I thought the reference to the coalition was AIS, since it was a "coalition" of law firms. Hat-tip to @CynicalScouter for the clarification. 

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I couldn't disagree more.  I believe he cares more about survivors than he does in the institution known as the BSA.  He will leave the salvaging of BSA to those who believe it can be salvaged.

Just talking out loud here....

I see it as indiscriminate lack care for collateral damage (i.e., the current scouts). How can we salvage anything with what's left if Total Warfare Tim K. is "salting the earth"? I think 99.9999% of the good folks in this forum agree that BSA needs to do the right thing by compensating the victims from its trail of carnage... and, most of us also agree that BSA is not scouting. However, if it is burned to the ground and people are dancing around the ashes afterwards claiming total victory... how do we think 12-year old Johnny is going to feel when he realizes what has happened? Sure, there may be other organizations that fills the void... but I believe the killing of BSA, if that happens, will hit these kids harder than most people think. Ultimately, my concern is always to protect kids... they are innocent and don't deserve to get caught in the middle of adults fighting. If BSA goes away, how do you break that to a 15-year old Life Scout that was a few merit badges shy of Eagle Scout? "sorry buddy, the BSA did some pretty bad stuff way before you were born and so it had to go away. I know you've dedicated half your life to scouting and to becoming an Eagle Scout... but that's no longer in the cards". Of course, this is all conjecture... but hopefully you get my point. As an adult, with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex, I know BSA is not the same thing as scouting. But to a kid who has "Boy Scouts of America" on his shirt... I think it's gonna be hard helping him cope with an aftermath that doesn't allow him to continue his journey towards Eagle Scout. 

Whatever will happen is anyone's guess at this point... but... Tim K. can win without salting the earth in the process. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

... separates Kosnoff from the Coalition, the TCC, and perhaps any other attorney involved on the claimants side of the case...

Are we talking about the AIS Coalition? Because Kosnoff (and the other 3 law groups) entered into an agreement with their clients under the auspice of "AIS"... wherein the Hensley Law got a lion's share (50% of the 40% they recovered for the AIS clients). I understand, Tim K. said his signature was being "used and abused"... which it may very well have been (I'll defer to the experts during discovery). But... if Tim K. is released from his AIS Coalition commitment (I'm not sure if that is his intent or not)... it would effectively nullify all of the contracts between AIS and their clients because Kosnoff Law was 100% part of the initial contracts. One could argue, and I am not saying this is what happened, that the claims aggregators went hot n' heavy with generating clients, using any means necessary (e.g., photocopying signatures and what not), and then when the claimant number shot through the roof... law groups like Kosnoff realized they weren't exactly getting a fair shake under the Hensley-heavy contracts the AIS clients were signing. As I have said before... it is certainly a mess... so I am glad the judge is giving an opportunity for people to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. As for Tim K., the guy may be a saint that talks like a sailor... I not friends with the guy... so I can only capture data points like everyone else and make my own interpretations accordingly. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one.

Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said.

1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated that over and over, but that scouting needs to continue WITHOUT BSA.

2) If you found an organization that had, for 100+ years, aided and abetted in the systematic sexual assault of children AND either a) did nothing or b) did not much, I think a reasonable reaction would be "this organization is so corrupt as to be unsalvagable. Start anew." That, to my ear, is Kosnoff's point. I am not saying I agree with it, but if you truly believe BSA's that corrupt from top to bottom, then "burn it all down" is one possible reasonable conclusion.

I guess therein the lies the interpretation aspect. Given Tim K.'s viscerally negative words and tone, irrespective to his duty to his clients, to me at least, sounds different in my ear. From my perspective, I am hearing "burn it down, make it go away". Looking at your perspective "burn it down, rebuild something new"... I can support that notion. I would venture to say most of the scouters in this forum are concerned with "what happens after all of this is over"... and I got the impression that Tim K. was more interested in a "General Sherman total warfare" approach wherein winning and the decimation of BSA was more important than considering what could be salvaged afterwards. 

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I keep checking Ancestry.com to see if they’ve listed the lineage. So far, no dice. I even bought a subscription and signed up for notices. Don’t wanna miss it. I’ll post the family tree with color commentary when it lands.  

🤣 Thanks... I needed a good LOL this morning.

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Similar ... if BSA were to liquidate, then LCs could file suit for damages due to breach of contract.  One medication could be continued right to use IP.  

I think that would be good for some councils... definitely not others. In this scenario, it would be the Balkanization of scouting after years of independent LCs doing their own things. It could be, however, a better way to re-envision BSA national. No longer a separate entity, but a sort of "council of councils" wherein each SE gets to vote on policies, procedures, et cetera. They could even do a bi-annual vote of officer positions. Basically, decentralize power, give more power back to the LCs, but provide oversight. Hummm, where have I heard that before? (***the original U.S. Constitution wherein any powers not enumerated were kicked back to the states to determine for themselves***). Oh, what a perfect BSA that could be. 

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. Kosnoff may be the biggest jerk in the world
2. Kosnoff's signature may have been misused/used without his permission

#1 has no bearing on #2. #2 has no bearing on #1.

Definitely a valid point. Hopefully the discovery process opens the curtains and we get to see the wizard(s). 

Like I said... if Tim K. is proven innocent... I'll eat my words with a big slice of humble pie. But, I still take exception to his stated goal of making BSA go away. That would hurt the kids that are currently in the program. For someone who is rattling the saber and frothing at the mouth about bringing justice to thousands of innocent kids... he doesn't seem to be giving a modicum of consideration for current kids ("scouts") and how this will affect their lives. He needs to be "thinking locally" and "acting nationally"... meaning, hold BSA accountable... but don't try to destroy it because that would have severe ramifications for "the kids on Main St. USA". The program, at the local level, is still one of the greatest programs ever envisions (*hat tip to Baden Powell and William Hillcourt - and so many others). 

I am not saying BSA didn't need to be forced to address this issue... but all of us know BSA doesn't me "scouts". You know... the little kids in our communities that just want to go camping in the outdoors and make s'mores around campfires. If, and only if, Tim K. started to show some consideration for them, and how completely destroying BSA would do more harm than good... maybe I'd be inclined to change my mind. But... none of that is really applicable to the case, so I'll step down from my soapbox. 

I appreciate your grain-of-salt analysis. Thank you!

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Chapter 7 won't happen. The judge has made it pretty clear that's not in the cards.

If BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen.

Let me repeat that: if BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen. Even Stang earlier on admitted that.

The main reason for this entire knock down drag out fight is that BSA wants the LCs and COs covered, too.

If the only issue was BSA leaving (what was called the "toggle plan") I fervently believe they could be out of bankruptcy by December 2021 (optimistic) or March 2022.

It would, of course, leave the LCs and COs absolutely up a creek without paddles.

If it gets to the point of BSA being completely out of cash and resources, I would expect at that point BSA to submit a BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO plan to the claimants with the proviso that, should that be rejected, BSA will ask the court for a cramdown anyway for BSA only and that absent that, BSA will request Chapter 7. This was already pretty much BSA plan 3.0, except no veiled threat of a Chapter 7.

• If it got the 2/3rds needed, done. BSA's out of bankruptcy along with the LCs and COs.
• If it failed to get the 2/3rds needed, rather than watching as BSA dies, the judge would order a cramdown. BSA comes out of bankruptcy, and 1/4 to 1/3 of councils will be in bankruptcy the next day. Yes, I know, that's never happened in an abuse bankruptcy case before. You know what also never happened? 82,500 claims and the possibility of an institution like BSA being pushed out of existence. Given a choice between the two (a dead BSA vs. a cramdown), I suspect the judge would order the cramdown.

This is my wild speculation. Take with copious grains of salt.

 

While a "cramdown" would be bad PR (or at least a stain) for BSA... I hope discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators highlights impropriety, or...at the very least... helps answer any looming questions/speculation out there. I think it would be bad for all parties if it goes unanswered. Again, I am glad the judge saw merit in granting that motion. 

14 hours ago, Muttsy said:

It is a good omen for the future of scouting that people on this forum are starting that process of reimagining scouting. 

I couldn't agree more.

@CynicalScouterSo... based on your opinion... how long to do think this will drag out? 2023 and beyond? If so, how long can BSA hold out (financially) before they have to cry out for mercy and are forced to switch to chapter 7?

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, Fraud Claim #1 is that a lawyer himself/herself was mass signing this. Fraud Claim #2 was that those aggregators were using OTHER lawyers signatures, with or without their consent.

It's definitely a mess for sure, so I am glad the judge set this on at least some narrow path to get to the bottom of the claims aggregation process. IMHO, if they do get to the bottom of this and their was criminal intent... that party should go to jail and not collect the $200 for passing go.

Having read what the insurers filed WRT to AIS disclosing its structure, which referenced a lot of public social media post by Tim K., sorry compadre... I used to do interviews with bad guys in Afghanistan... the loudest and most adamant were generally the most guilty. I'll eat those words with a big ol' slice of humble pie if I am wrong... but something about this whole AIS structure doesn't smell right. I guess time will tell what comes of all of this. 

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

TBD. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to hide the fact they were mass cranking these with only a few lawyers.

So the way AIS was structured... claimants entered into an agreement with Eisenberg Rothweiler, Kosnoff Law, Hensley Legal Group P.C., and AVA Law Group ("AIS"). If an award is recovered the claimant would pay AIS 40% of the recovered amount... of that 40% amount... Hensley Legal Group would get 50% and the other 50% would be distributed to Eisenberg Rothweiler, Kosnoff Law, and AVA Law Group. Not sure how any of their claimants were divvied amongst the four... but it's apparent Hensley is getting a lion's share compared to the other three. 

I'm asking how the process would go... if the insurers got their way. We know BSA cannot afford to stay in bankruptcy limbo for much longer. At what point, or rough timeline, would they need to throw their hands in the air and say fine... bring on Chapter 7... it was nice knowing everyone. I'm interested in this because I am about to start putting a lot of effort into helping to promote my national-level CO to be a bastion for units that lose their COs at re-charter and need a place to hang their hats. I never like being a pessimist, but I also don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time setting up a support mechanism if there is no hope for BSA. Not that anyone is clairvoyant and can predict what will happen... but an analytically thought-out guesstimate would be helpful. 

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurers want to use evidence of a) and b) to imply that ALL errors/mistakes (a) and "fraudulent" (b).

So, in your opinion... if they found "fraud" or even "mistakes" they are claiming as fraud... this could turn into a very, very long battle if they can convince the court to allow them vet each claim... one by one? Or is that not how it would work? I ain't a lawyer... but I saw a couple episodes of Law & Order once...  

So here is a question. If, during discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators, they identify fraudulent claims... does anyone have any speculation as to what might happen next? The same question for AIS, which clearly has lawyers/law firms tied to it... what might happen if it comes out that fraudulent claims were filed? Are those claims just tossed out... or would it give the insurers the ammunition they need to be more aggressive with their demands/motions?

3 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

.... May be game over for the CO model

We, as a UMC troop are seeing what the landscape is and what out future may or may not hold.

 

 

This is what I am wanting to do. Propose that the LCs in my state just charter the units directly... and then we (our national-level organization) can simply give units a place to meet. Meaning, our organization could simply allow multiple units to meet during any given week (just on different nights). In larger cities, this could definitely help with the "space issue" if COs continue to turn away,

37 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

• My recommendation
  • This is an opportunity to represent the relationship correctly.  CO was never guiding the program.  Everyone knew that.  Now, let's make the paperwork match reality.  The words we sign with our signature matter.  We need to get it right.  
  • WAS (and communicated) - Use the facility use agreement.  Do NOT sign the charter org.  
  • NOW - If I am asked again, I'd recommend CO's should not sign anything.  The CO supports many community organizations allowing them to use the space and have keys only using the church's registration form.  They still need to do that.  ... The key is ... The CO does not benefit at all by signing a document. ... IMHO, the CO needs to have it's own insurance anyway ... The negative is signing the document represents a legal agreement that can be twisted into a liability.  ...  It makes no sense for the CO to sign any agreement.  It does not help them.

I like this approach. IMHO, not that my opinion means much, is that the LCs should be chartering the units and the community COs should be giving scouts places to meet. Seems simple to me and it creates a clear line as to which entity is responsible for oversight of the program.

I think national really needs to look at re-inventing the commissioner corps. I also think, the rising generation of adult leaders need to seek out the old-school scouters in their areas and find out how the program used to be, not what it has become. The problem is all these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed DE's that are trained to looks for any place to start a new unit. I get that we want to make scouts accessible, but the "assembly line of unit making" is too much for anyone to manage. I guess it is the age-old question.... "quality vs. quantity". The volunteers want quality while the professionals need quantity (volume). With the amount of units folding in my area... it is definitely highlighting how you can't keep cranking out units with no plan as to how they will programmatically support themselves. One unit with 60 kids is better than 12 units with 5 kids each. While you can tell deep-pocketed corporate donors... "look, we have 12 units in this particular area"... when you take a closer look... you can definitely see the difference between a solid unit and one that is being artificially held together by DE's.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

.... have urged, encouraged, recommended, strongly recommended, etc. no rechartering past December 31, 2021 ...

I think that is my present conundrum. I am actively trying to encourage scouting is all areas of my state... but with news articles sharing "de facto edicts"... it seems to be causing a level of ambivalence towards scouting that I've never encountered. 

Back in the day... or at least when I put on my rose-colored glasses... when you said, "hey, the Boy Scouts need...." you were met with open arms with whatever your request was. Now, it seems like the answer is, "let me check with my insurance policy to see if we can do that..." 

Definitely making things more difficult. I can't speak for other national-level COs or how they are bracing for whatever is coming down the line... but there is definitely panic within the herd. 

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

... younger scouts learn good habits simply by seeing them in action.

Before my tenure as SM... the troop operated way differently and the scouts were used to the adults doing everything and making all the decisions. It took a few years to get them operating like a troop should, but that effort paid a lot of dividends for us. We're certainly not perfect by any means... but I am incredibly proud when I see my scouts leading the way in their schools and having great impacts on our community. It took a lot of explaining to the other leaders that if we loosened up our grip... the scouts would take charge and surprise us. We still have hiccups every now and then, which is to be expected, but that just teaches the scouts how to adapt and overcome (roll with the punches life throws your way). 

We had two Eagle Project proposals at last night's committee meetings and the two 14-y/o scouts were commanding with their presentations and took every curveball the committee tossed their way. When I see our scouts performing like this... it does make me think we are giving them a solid program. 

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Of course, but we are talking about taking the older mentor scouts out of the loop. prepubescent boys instinctively tend to herd for protection. Leadership forces them on the open away safety, so heavy mentoring gets them through it. But, 13 year olds are not older scouts and adults aren't good models to mimic. 

Barry

Sorry, the older scouts being the 16 & 17 y/o scouts. In our troop, the scouts know it is their troop. They run it using the patrol method. I have two 17 y/o Eagle Scouts that are my troop guides. Their entire function is to help the SPL make the right leadership decisions. Each patrol also has an ASM assigned to them so there is adult guidance. But, all my ASMs know that failure is ok. It is ok for the scouts to make mistakes so they can learn from their mistakes. As for me, I mentor the Eagle Patrol since they are JASMs. I want them to mimic my servant leadership style until they can come up with their own way.... I think it helps set them on the right path towards a lifelong journey of "cheerful service"/ 

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

My experience is under 14 scouts aren't instinctively mature for leadership, leaving the adults to intercede when the growth stalls.

I'd have to disagree. If the younger scouts, by way of the patrol method, are being mentored and guided by the older scouts... I have seen 13-14 years with the emotional and leadership maturity of well-seasoned scouts. Kids parrot what they see. If they see older scouts that are rock-solid youth leaders... they will mimic those traits.  

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Agreed and your points here may end up being the death of Scouts BSA as it stands.  18 years old isn't a light switch.  To be more safe, we may need to follow the UK model, Scouts 10.5 - 14 ... Explorers 14 - 18 and Network 18 - 25.  I think there is a bigger risk for 17 year olds hanging out with 13 year olds than 18 year olds with a 17 year old.  I wonder if in 5 - 10 years if BSA is forced to change based on insurance policies & litigation potential.

I think adaptation is always a good thing for any organization. Once the dust settles, and I am really hoping BSA comes out of this on the other side, maybe national will be more open to suggestions from the boots-and-the ground folks who clearly have a passion for the ideals of scouting and offer some pretty astute solutions for how to best iron-out blanket policies that seem to be causing recalcitrance amongst the volunteer population.

45 minutes ago, qwazse said:

One problem with intense litigation: … it discourages voluntary reporting. But, from what I’ve come to understand, it depends.

• Formidable predators (let’s consider the adult serial rapist) may get their start at an early age … but avoid getting caught at the time.
• Some (not all) homosexuals who’ve talked to me about their history became sexually active at an early age with young women or men just a couple of years older.
• It is taken as gospel by those with a permissive sexual ethic that young people either have sex or talk about it or share images/videos about it a lot … often with someone of a different age. There is a movement that encourages that dialogue. Inevitably, in this world view, we will find conversations one participant is just over 18 and the other just under.

All of this puts young ASMs in a precarious position. What they might consider “normal” is extremely threatening to the organization. Moreover a real predator could be masquerading under the veil of innocence.

Definitely some good points here. 

One of the problems I have encountered is the constant back-and-forth wherein one group says the other side is normalizing hedonistic behavior and the other group is saying the other side is cleaving to archaic principles that have little value in a modern day society. While having an open discussion is certainly worth the time... as an interim fix... I tell my scouts and parents the approach should be easy. If they focus on abstinence until adulthood, then none of the other stuff really matters. Once a young person has reached the age of 25, and has a fully developed prefrontal cortex, they can make up their own dang minds as to what is moral and what is not. My job, as a leader, is to make sure scouts have a safe environment so they can develop into strong, confident leaders with unquestionable character.

Collectively, we have open discussions about YPT with scouts and parents and we encourage them to ask questions... and to hold adult leaders accountable if they feel there is something improper (*sometimes it takes a village, right?). Like I've said before, we promote a culture of YP in our unit, so it is as normalized as any of the other safety briefs we give. I am definitely not naïve to think we can solve an endemic problem of this magnitude, but if we can focus on our spheres of influence, within our own communities, we can certainly abate the problem to the fullest extent possible. 

Again, very good points!